Re: [arch-d] [IAB] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Thu, 09 January 2020 22:40 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FACE120829; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 14:40:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4wPpkB5quvBF; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 14:40:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 579A5120825; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 14:40:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.131.215]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 009Me46B003536 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 9 Jan 2020 14:40:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1578609616; x=1578696016; i=@elandsys.com; bh=4B11ErzaVeb2TzfKmohQ7t23ORq+b3hZaZtb3amg/Yk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=mL8zyH6naAq2AkoI6SB03Tus0HN1ci3Pn6/GWd5mLhSpf7br4lPcd62zEHjAZ9kAR m9//HLacnXhrjARyhVQFa64pL/GL6aSqOmyCf4mHQZwbJxc8l6KzFwIn+soJ8NbBA+ QDJSwTwXscQ5SsFCS58lbfBuw+oZRxx74oSUAUyE=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200109123000.132b1688@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 14:31:50 -0800
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMCasmPVwm6mD92i75Zkj2FZuO=qvO7bBxnWErMiuLd1eA@mail.g mail.com>
References: <4e888f0a-a1e8-df72-cbbc-9a2e2f0d0d05@iab.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20200108213623.144cb518@elandnews.com> <CA+9kkMCasmPVwm6mD92i75Zkj2FZuO=qvO7bBxnWErMiuLd1eA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/1xIRu53m9hleGD_ifXig9dQ_7T0>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] [IAB] Draft IAB conflict of interest policy
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 22:40:20 -0000

Hi Ted,
At 11:41 AM 09-01-2020, Ted Hardie wrote:
>A few responses below, in-line.

Thanks.  I'll comment in-line.

>This policy deals with covered individuals' work within the context 
>of their role on the IAB.  If they  have other roles, they may also 
>need to abide by the policies of those bodies (e.g. the LLC COI 
>policy, found at: 
><https://ietf.org/about/administration/policies-procedures/>https://ietf.org/about/administration/policies-procedures/ 
>).

I guess that I was not clear.  The obligation for the IETF LLC Board 
Directors is, in simple terms, to act in the interest of that legal 
entity.  It would be there even if there wasn't a LLC conflict of 
interest policy.  The sentence from the IAB Charter states that the 
member shall not have any obligation.  The two obligations are in 
conflict with each other.

>The first part of the above paragraph relates to appointments which 
>result in a contract with the IETF LLC.  The IAB's role in approving 
>RSOC recommendations for the RSE is an example.  The IAB does not 
>negotiate the contract for the RSE, but since the approval is a 
>required step prior to that contract negotiation, individuals on the 
>IAB need to be aware of any conflicts of interest in providing or 
>withholding an approval.

Ok.

>The second part is unrelated to the IETF LLC, and I believe, based 
>on your comment, it might be better to split the two ideas into two 
>different paragraphs.

Ok.

>Then the other members of the IAB are aware of the conflict and can 
>take it into account.

Ok.

>An example:  The IAB as a whole decides that it would be useful to 
>take up the topic of geographic redundancy of submarine cable 
>infrastructure.  Some IAB member might have a member of their 
>immediate family that is a director of a company focused on 
>providing land-side infrastructure to that industry; as a result, a 
>statement by the IAB suggesting more or less redundancy in that 
>infrastructure could have an impact on their household.  By my 
>reading, disclosing that conflict would be required by this  draft policy.

Thanks for providing an example to convey the idea.

>But if a portion of the analysis were to examine application layer 
>protocol failover tolerance, so as to understand the cases for which 
>non-submarine cable infrastructure could be used as redundant 
>capacity,  the IAB member might choose not to recuse from the 
>discussion of that topic *even if they recused from the discussion 
>of the final recommendation on the main issue*.  The data and 
>analysis on failover tolerance is broadly useful, after all, and it 
>may be an area of concern for them in their own work.  The rest of 
>the IAB would be aware of the issue and could provide guide rails if 
>needed, but the discretion here is to allow IAB members to 
>contribute when appropriate, even when some conflict of interest has 
>been noted.
>
>This is just my opinion, though, and my reading of the draft policy.

The above is the usual practice (outside the IAB).

If I could raise a concern, it would be about the following sentence: 
"In carrying out their IAB role, Covered Individuals must act in the 
best interest of the Internet community".  It is not possible to get 
a sense of what that community perceives as being in its best 
interest.  It is like putting in a requirement which sounds good in 
theory and which cannot be assessed in a practical manner.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy